File Format:

Adobe Reader

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
2 3
Description
The common name came into use
during the early 1800’s when
‘cockade’ was regularly used to refer
to a ribbon or other ornament worn
on a hat. Female RCWs lack the red
cockade. Juvenile males have a red
‘patch’ in the center of their black
crown. This patch disappears during
the fall of their first year at which
time their ‘red-cockades’ appear.
The RCW shares the southeast with
seven other species of woodpeckers.
Hairy and downy woodpeckers could
be mistaken for RCWs as they are
also small and have black and white
barred wings, but not a barred back.
Only the RCW has the white cheek
patch. Other woodpecker species,
including the red-bellied, red-headed,
pileated, northern flicker and
yellow-bellied sapsucker, can be
distinguished from the RCW by
either having very noticeable red on
their head or lacking the black and
white bars on the back.
The red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) is a
small bird measuring
about 7 inches in length.
Identifiable by its white
cheek patch and black
and white barred back,
the males have a few red
feathers, or “cockade”.
These red feathers
usually remain hidden
underneath black
feathers between the
black crown and white
cheek patch unless the
male is disturbed or
excited.
1 Red-cockaded
2 Hairy
3 Downy
4 Pileated
5 Red-bellied
6 Red-headed
7 Sapsucker
8 Flicker
9 Ivorybill
(extinct)
Richard A. Parks
Plate of
southeastern
woodpeckers;
from Thomas
M. Imhof’s
“Alabama Birds”
Southeastern Woodpeckers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5
Historical Distribution and Abundance
RCWs were once considered
common throughout the longleaf
pine ecosystem, which covered
approximately 90 million acres before
European settlement. Historical
population estimates are 1-1.6 million
“groups”, the family unit of RCWs.
The birds inhabited the open pine
forests of the southeast from New
Jersey, Maryland and Virginia to
Florida, west to Texas and north to
portions of Oklahoma, Missouri,
Tennessee and Kentucky. The longleaf
pine ecosystem initially disappeared
from much of its original range
because of early (1700’s) European
settlement, widespread commercial
timber harvesting and the naval
stores/turpentine industry (1800’s).
Early to mid-1900 commercial tree
farming, urbanization and agriculture
contributed to further declines. Much
of the current habitat is also very
different in quality from historical
pine forests in which RCWs evolved.
Today, many southern pine forests
are young and an absence of fire has
created a dense pine/hardwood forest.
Top: Turn of the century (1900) logging of virgin longleaf
pine forest in east Texas; courtesy of the East Texas
Research Center, Steen Library, Forest History
Collections, Stephen F. Austin State Univ, Nacogdoches,
TX. Bottom: Turn of the century (1900) logging of
longleaf pine forest in east Texas; courtesy of the East
Texas Research Center, Steen Library, Forest History
Collections, Thompson Family Lumber Enterprises
Collection, P90T:202, Stephen F. Austin State Univ.,
Nacogdoches, TX
Virgin longleaf
pine forest in
Escambia Co. FL
6 7
Decline of RCWs
The primary habitat of the RCW, the
longleaf pine ecosystem, has been
reduced to 3% of its original expanse.
This reduction of suitable habitat has
caused the number of RCWs to
decline by approximately 99% since
the time of European settlement (see
map on pages 12-13). The RCW was
listed as endangered in 1970 and
received the protection of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) with
its passage in 1973. At the time of
listing, the species had declined to
fewer than 10,000 individuals in
widely scattered, isolated and
declining populations. Today there
remains about 5,600 groups or 14,000
birds. Most populations were
stabilized during the 1990’s due to
management based on new
understanding of RCW biology and
population dynamics. However, there
are still populations in decline and
small populations throughout the
species’ current range are still in
danger of extirpation.
Life History and
Reproductive Biology
The red-cockaded is a territorial,
non-migratory species. The RCWs
social system is more complex than
most species of birds; individuals live
in groups normally consisting of a
breeding pair and zero to four male
(rarely female) offspring from
previous years. These offspring,
know as “helpers”assist in incubating
eggs and brooding and feeding
nestlings produced by the breeding
pair. The RCW social system is
referred to as a cooperative breeding
system, that is, the breeding pair
receives assistance from offspring in
the raising of young. In mid-April,
the female RCW usually lays a clutch
of three to five white eggs in the
breeding male’s roost cavity. Eggs
hatch after 10-12 days of incubation
(among the shortest incubation in
birds) and nestlings fledge from the
nest cavity 24-27 days after hatching.
RCW nestlings are altricial, that is,
they do not have feathers when
hatched and their eyes are not open.
RCW delivering food to nestlings
Above: Seven-day
old RCW nestling.
Nestlings are
banded at 7-10
days old. Right:
Helper male
feeding juvenile
male.
Derrick Hamrick
Ralph Costa, USFWS
Derrick Hamrick
8 9
They require a lot of care from
parents and helpers who will feed the
nestlings and clean the cavity of
waste during the nestling period. In
contrast, quail are precocial; they
hatch fully feathered and are able to
feed themselves when led to food by
the parent. After fledging, the
nestlings continue to be fed by adults
for up to six months at which time the
majority of fledglings disperse from
the territory where they hatched.
Mortality is high (68%) for female
fledglings as they disperse to search
for breeding vacancies. Male
fledglings either disperse or remain
on their natal territory to become
helpers. Annual mortality is also high
(57%) for male fledglings. Although
re-nesting may occur if a clutch or
brood is lost, RCWs typically have
only one successful nesting attempt
annually. Double brooding (two
successful nests in one breeding
season) has been documented but is
extremely rare.
Diet and Foraging Behavior
The diet of RCWs consists mostly of
insects in the egg, larvae and adult
stages. These include beetles, ants,
roaches, spiders and other insects
found in or on pine trees. Fruits and
seeds make up a small portion of the
overall diet. Methods of foraging
include flaking away bark and
probing under the bark using their
specialized forked tongue to extract
insects. Large, older trees are
preferred for foraging. In general,
males forage on the limbs and upper
trunk while females forage on the
trunk below the crown. This division
of foraging area is most noticeable in
winter when insect numbers are at
their lowest and their activity slows
due to cold weather, making it harder
for RCWs to detect prey. Differences
in the foraging behavior of males
and females may help to reduce
competition between them when
food is scarce.
Roosting and Nesting Cavities
The RCW is the only North
American woodpecker to excavate
roost and nest cavities in living pine
trees. While longleaf pine is the
preferred species for excavation,
other species such as loblolly,
shortleaf, slash and pond pine are
also used depending on the local
forest type and tree species
availability. The use of live pines as
roosting and nesting sites may have
evolved in response to living in a fire
maintained ecosystem where
frequent fires, primarily in the
growing season, eliminated most
standing dead pines (snags).
Longleaf pine is thought to be
preferred by the woodpeckers
because it is the most fire-adapted of
the pines. Longleaf pine has a unique
‘grass’ stage when young, producing
an abundance of long green needles
that burn during ground fires, thus
protecting the growing stem.
Longleaf also produces more resin
when wounded than other pines,
making them more resistant to insect
outbreaks such as the southern pine
beetle. RCWs use this increased
Above: Male
RCW bringing
food to nest
cavity (note
difficulty seeing
red-cockade).
Right: RCW
active cavity tree
(note candle-like
appearance and
evidence of recent
prescribed fire).
Jim Hanula, USFS
Ralph Costa, USFWS
10 11
resin flow for cavity defense by
chipping holes, called ‘resin wells’,
above and around the entrance to the
cavity as a defense against predators.
Rat snakes, skillful at climbing trees,
are the main predators of RCW
nests. Resin flow produced by the
wells creates a physical and chemical
barrier that impedes the snake’s
movement up the tree. The birds also
scale the outer bark off the tree
above and below the cavity entrance,
exposing sapwood around the cavity
entrance forming a ‘plate’ around the
cavity. Resin flowing from the wells
created by the RCWs may eventually
coat the trunk, thus making the
cavity tree conspicuous from a
distance, giving it a candle-like
appearance.
Each member of the group roosts
in a separate cavity. Cavities are
excavated in mature pines, generally
over 80 years old. Cavity excavation
takes one to six years. The birds
slowly excavate through the resinous
sapwood before reaching the
relatively sap-free heartwood.
RCWs choose older trees for cavity
excavation. They need trees mature
enough to have sufficient heartwood
for a cavity free of sap and because
many mature trees are infected with
red heart fungus. This fungus softens
the heartwood and allows for easier
excavation of the roosting chamber.
Individual cavities are known that
have been used by RCWs for over six
generations, or approximately 30
years. The aggregate of cavity trees
used by a group is referred to as a
‘cluster’. The cluster consists of one
to numerous cavity trees; trees may
contain new cavity ‘starts’ and
completed cavities. Cavity trees
within a cluster may be ‘active’,
currently being used by a RCW, or
‘inactive’, not being used by a RCW.
Above: Female
RCW working on
resin well. Right:
Black rat snake
climbing RCW
cavity tree.
Above: Juvenile
male RCW, just
prior to fledging.
Right: Active
RCW cavity with
many resin
wells, heavy
resin flow and
cavity “plate”.
Below right:
Advanced cavity
start, almost to
heartwood.
Derrick Hamrick
Richard N. Conner, USFS
Derrick Hamrick
Bob Hooper, USFS Ralph Costa, USFWS
12 13
Ecological Niche
Besides being unique among
North American woodpeckers,
red-cockaded woodpeckers are
‘primary’ cavity nesters, meaning
they are responsible for the
construction of cavities. In the
southern pine ecosystem there are
many ‘secondary’ cavity users that
benefit from the RCWs work. RCWs
are considered a ‘keystone’ species
because use of their cavities by these
animals contributes to the species
richness of the pine forest. At least
27 species of vertebrates have been
documented using RCW cavities,
either for roosting or nesting.
Species include birds, snakes, lizards,
squirrels and frogs. Many of these
species, for example wood ducks,
only use the cavities that have been
abandoned by RCWs; abandonment
usually occurs because the entrance
tunnel was enlarged by pileated
woodpeckers. However, southern
flying squirrels, red-bellied
woodpeckers, red-headed
woodpeckers, eastern bluebirds,
brown-headed nuthatches, tufted
titmice and great crested flycatchers
are the species most commonly seen
in RCW cavities, and can use normal,
unenlarged cavities that RCWs could
also use. RCW cavities are a valued
resource for many species and
competition occurs for their use.
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers and Fire
A healthy, productive RCW
population is also an indicator of a
healthy southern pine ecosystem.
RCWs and southern pines both
evolved in a fire-dominated system.
Many other species within this
system show adaptations to fire. The
most prominent adaptation of RCWs
is their use of living pines for cavity
excavation. The history of fire in the
southeast has a natural and human
component. Research has suggested
the ecosystem evolved in response to
slow-moving ground fires started by
Above: Completed,
very active cavity
(note the large
resin wells, thick
resin flow and
plate formation,
indicating a
cavity that has
been in use for
years). Right:
RCW cluster in
longleaf pine
forest. Bottom
right: RCW
cluster in shortleaf
pine/loblolly pine
forest.
Right: Great-crested
flycatcher
using inactive
RCW cavity for
nest. Below:
Southern flying
squirrel using
RCW cavity.
Bob Hooper, USFS
Bob Hooper, USFS Phillip Jordon
D. Craig Rudolph, USFS
Derrick Hamrick
14 15
lightning strikes, which occur more
frequently in the southeast than
anywhere else in North America.
Most fires started by lightning
strikes occur in the spring and
summer growing season, when
thunderstorms are more prevalent.
Native Americans and later
European settlers used fire to clear
land and improve hunting grounds.
However much of this burning was
accomplished during the winter, the
non-growing season. Frequent fires
created an open forest, with large
pines, little to no mid-story, and a
diverse herbaceous groundcover;
described by many 19th century
naturalists as ‘park-like’ because they
could easily ride horses and wagons
across the land. Many of the
groundcover plant species show
adaptations to fire and are termed
‘pyrophytic’ or ‘fire-loving’. For
example, wiregrass is a highly
flammable bunchgrass, typically
producing seed only after a summer
growing season burn. Because of its
unique fire-loving properties, the
biodiversity of herbaceous
groundcover in longleaf pine forests
is among the world’s highest.
Above:
Lightening-ignited
wildfire
in longleaf pine
forest. Below:
slow moving
ground fire in
longleaf pine
forest likely
typical of
‘historic’ natural
and human
ignited fires.
Top: White birds-in-a-nest (Macbridea alba), federally
listed as threatened, endemic to longleaf pine forests in
Florida; one of many listed, rare, endemic, herbaceous
plants unique to southeastern pine ecosystems. Bottom:
Longleaf pine—wiregrass habitat; a result of frequent
growing season prescribed fires.
Joan Walker, USFS Joan Walker, USFS
Ralph Costa, USFWS
D. Craig Rudolph, USFS
16 17
Historic and current (1995); updated 2002, distribution
map of RCW; courtesy of Our Living Resources: A
Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance,
and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems,
National Biological Service, USDI. Red-cockaded
Woodpecker; Costa and Walker, 1995
Historic Distribution of Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Jackson 1971, Hooper et al.
1980).
Current Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Distribution (Federal, State, and Private
Sector Biologists 1993, 1994; updated 2002)
★
Distribution of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers
?
18 19
Habitat Management
Degradation and loss of habitat led to
the rapid decline of RCWs.
Conservation and management of
adequate habitat is central to
recovery goals. Quality habitat
includes forests with trees old
enough for roosting, generally at
least 80-120 years old, depending on
species of pine. Hardwood midstory
results in cluster abandonment;
therefore, it is critical that hardwood
midstory be controlled. Prescribed
burning is the most efficient and
ecologically beneficial method to
accomplish hardwood midstory
control. Either mechanical and/or
chemical treatment may also be
required for initial control of the
midstory. Foraging habitat must also
consist of a forest of older pines with
little or no midstory. Each RCW
group uses from 75-200 acres of
foraging habitat. The acres used
depend upon habitat quality and
population density. For example, a
park-like forest of older, larger pines
and open understory is of higher
quality than a dense forest with many
small, young pines. The area
required for RCW foraging on high
quality sites is less than sites of lower
quality. However, habitat
management for forage and cavity
trees must include the development
of a young age class of pines to insure
the necessary older trees for future
generations of RCWs. The
application of controlled burns is
essential in keeping the structure of
the forest beneficial to RCWs.
Above: Longleaf
pine forest with
young trees
and wiregrass
understory.
Right: Longleaf
pine forest
with turkey
oak midstory.
Bottom right:
High quality,
longleaf pine
RCW foraging
habitat.
Prescribed
burning in
longleaf pine
forest.
D. Craig Rudolph, USFS
Joan Walker, USFS
Ralph Costa, USFWS Felica Sanders, USFWS/Clemson University/SCDNR
20 21
Cavity Management and
Population Augmentation
Today’s RCW populations, especially
small ones, will not increase to viable
sizes without human intervention.
Several management techniques,
introduced in the early 1990’s, have
been responsible for increasing RCW
populations. One of the most
successful has been the installation of
artificial cavities. Cavities are critical
to RCWs nesting and roosting and
their presence for each group
member increases the chances for
survival and persistence of the group.
There are two main techniques for
providing artificial cavities for
RCWs. These include drilling holes
that mimic natural cavities and
installing boxes called ‘inserts’ within
a suitable tree.
These techniques were put to the test
after Hurricane Hugo destroyed 87%
of the active cavity trees on the
Francis Marion National Forest in
1989, the second largest RCW
population at the time. Installation of
artificial cavities, both inserts and
drilled, helped to stabilize the
population after this devastating loss.
Translocation of juvenile RCWs is
another management technique used
in RCW recovery. Translocation
involves moving one or more juvenile
RCWs between or within populations
to achieve management goals. These
goals include saving critically small
populations in danger of ‘extirpation’
or disappearing; developing a better
spatial arrangement of groups to
reduce isolation; introducing birds to
suitable habitat; and increasing
genetic diversity in critically small
populations. Typically, two types of
translocations are conducted: a
female juvenile is moved to a solitary
male group; and an unrelated male
and female juvenile are moved to a
‘recruitment’ cluster in hopes of
establishing a new group.
Recruitment clusters are established
by installing artificial cavities in
unoccupied but suitable habitat.
Refining translocation techniques has
made this an invaluable tool for
recovery. The most important
component, quality habitat,
consisting of open park-like pine
forests, suitable nesting and roosting
cavities, and adequate foraging
habitat, must be in place before
translocations are conducted.
Right: Hurricane
Hugo, September
1989, eye
centered over the
Francis Marion
National Forest.
Bottom right:
Francis Marion
National Forest
post-Hurricane
Hugo.
Above right:
Subadult female
and male in
preparation for
translocation to
a recruitment
cluster. Above:
Wildlife biologist
installing
artificial cavity
insert.
NASA Ralph Costa, USFWS
Mike Lennartz, USFS
USFS
22 23
Conservation Efforts
Recovery efforts for the RCW began
with the listing of the bird in 1970
and passage of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. The U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service outlined goals
and guidelines for recovery of the
RCW in the Recovery Plan written in
1979 and revised in 1985 and 2003.
Recovery will be achieved when we
have numerous self-sustaining
populations of woodpeckers. Once
Endangered Species Act de-listing
criteria are met, the size, number,
and distribution of populations will
be sufficient to counteract threats
associated with small population size,
environmental factors, such as
annual fluctuations in weather and
prey abundance, genetic viability,
and catastrophic events, thereby
maintaining long-term viability for
the species as defined by current
understanding of these processes.
Regions and habitat types currently
occupied by the species will be
represented as adequately as
possible, given habitat limitations.
The Recovery Plan identifies eleven
recovery units based on ecoregions.
Populations required for recovery
are distributed among the recovery
units to ensure the representation
of broad geographic and genetic
variation within the species historic
range. The recovery strategy
includes the participation of federal
agencies, state agencies and private
landowners. Approximately 66%
of RCWs occur on federal lands,
including numerous national forests,
national wildlife refuges, and
military installations, one national
park and one Department of
Energy facility. Eleven percent of
RCWs occur on state lands and
private lands harbor approximately
23% of known RCWs.
Knowledge of RCW biology and
life history increased significantly
during the 1990s. Research findings
have led to significant conservation
initiatives. Many property managers
and biologists band their RCWs
(both adults and nestlings), survey
and map cavity trees and annually
monitor nesting activities to assess
population health. Research findings
on the bird’s natural history and
ecology have enabled landowners and
managers to implement habitat
improvement programs. The positive
population trends (early 1990’s to
present) on many public and private
lands are a direct result of successful
implementation of a well-coordinated
regional translocation program and
habitat improvements, such as
controlling midstory, prescribed
burning, and installing artificial
cavities.
Right: Artificial
cavity insert with
metal restrictor
plate to prevent
damage by
pileated
woodpeckers
(note artificially
created resin
wells and non-toxic
white paint
to imitate resin
flow). Below
right: wildlife
biologist banding
eight-day-old
RCW nestling.
Wildlife biologist
climbing RCW
nest cavity tree,
with ten foot
sectional
Swedish
climbing ladders,
to capture and
band nestlings.
USFS Jody Bock, Clemson University
Nancy Jordan, Clemson University
24 25
Private Land Conservation
Partnerships
Although public lands, both federal
and state, are central to recovery
efforts, approximately 23% of RCWs
(1296 groups in 10 states) reside on
private lands. In the early 1990’s, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
realizing that population declines on
private lands were hindering
recovery efforts, developed and
implemented strategies for RCW
conservation on private land.
The benefits of conserving RCWs
on private lands are numerous.
They include reducing habitat
fragmentation rates, maintaining or
enhancing occupied habitat, restoring
populations to unoccupied habitat,
maintaining or increasing population
numbers, establishing buffers for
adjacent public land populations,
reducing effects of catastrophic
events, such as hurricanes or southern
pine beetle outbreaks, providing
corridors to other populations,
serving as reservoirs of genetic
diversity, providing birds for other
populations, and contributing to
research on life history and ecology,
management techniques and
conservation strategies.
Many private landowners are
concerned with restrictions on
the use of their land should an
endangered species, such as RCWs,
be found on or move to their
property. One of the foundations
of the private land conservation
strategy of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has been to alleviate
landowner’s fears of endangered
species restrictions while also
minimizing the economic impact
of conservation.
Strategies include Memorandums
of Agreement (MOA), Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCP) and
Safe Harbor agreements. MOAs are
generally between the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and corporations.
They outline actions by which a
corporation can manage for
RCWs and/or their habitat while
simultaneously meeting their
corporate objectives for land
management. HCPs, once approved
by the Service, provide landowners
with “incidental take” (defined by the
ESA as taking that “is incidental to,
and not the purpose of, the carrying
out of an otherwise lawful activity”)
of selected RCW groups in exchange
for ‘creation’ of new groups,
management of occupied habitat
and/or restoration of suitable habitat.
Via an HCP, private landowners
Active
red-cockaded
woodpecker cavity
tree in urban
setting on private
land enrolled in
safe harbor.
Approximately 5%
(70 groups) of the
1296 red-cockaded
groups living on
private land are
in urban settings,
such as horse
farms, golf
courses and
subdivisions.
The remaining
95% are on quail
plantations and
industrial forest
lands.
Protected, active
red-cockaded
woodpecker
cluster on
industrial forest
land. Several
industrial forest
landowners have
taken leadership
roles, via habitat
conservation
plans, in
red-cockaded
woodpecker
conservation and
management on
their property.
Jeremy Poirier, International Paper
J.H. Carter III
26 27
Historic Time Line for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers
1807 Red-cockaded woodpecker “discovered” and
described as new species by Louis Jean Pierre
Vieillot; given scientific name of Picus borealis,
the northern woodpecker.
1810 Alexander Wilson describes the red-cockaded
woodpecker as a new species and names it Picus
querulus. Because Viellot’s scientific name came
first, today the bird is known as Picoides
borealis, the red-cockaded woodpecker, the
common name provided by Wilson.
1821 John James Audubon captures a red-cockaded
woodpecker near Bayou Sara, Louisiana and
paints its portrait from a living specimen; he
releases it two days later.
1880’s Red-cockaded woodpecker populations begin a
precipitous decline that continues through the
1930’s as land is cleared for agriculture, timber
and the war effort (World War I).
1911 F. E. L. Beal publishes first account of the
red-cockaded woodpecker’s diet.
1928 L.A. Hausman describes the red-cockaded
woodpecker as a “very causal visitant into the
southern portion of New Jersey”, suggesting it
has been extirpated by this date (assuming it
nested in the state—likely in the south/central
Jersey pine barrens).
1939 James Gut finds red-cockaded woodpecker fossil
wingbone in a Rock Spring, Florida streambed,
indicating presence of red-cockaded
woodpeckers in Florida during the Pleistocene.
1946 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in Missouri.
1958 Red-cockaded woodpecker likely extirpated in
Maryland; occasional sightings in 1974 and 1976
are considered “transients”.
1968 Department of Interior identifies the red-cockaded
woodpecker as a rare and endangered species.
1970 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially lists the
red-cockaded woodpecker as an endangered
species.
1970 J.D. Ligon publishes first account on behavior and
breeding biology of red-cockaded woodpecker.
1970 First red-cockaded woodpecker symposium held
at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia.
typically ‘create’ a new woodpecker
group to mitigate and minimize for
loss of a group they might want to
eliminate from their land.
By far the most successful of the
private lands conservation strategies
is Safe Harbor. Originally developed
for RCW conservation, the Safe
Harbor approach is now being applied
to many other listed species that occur
on private lands. Under a Safe Harbor
agreement, a landowner voluntarily
agrees to protect and manage habitat
for the ‘baseline’ population; that is
the number of groups on the property
at the time the agreement is signed.
The landowner also implements
specific habitat improvements (such
as prescribed burning, midstory
hardwood removal, installation of
cavities) to further enhance occupied
and/or unoccupied, but potentially
suitable, habitat. If the habitat
improvements encourage the creation
of RCW groups above the ‘baseline’,
the landowners are under no
obligation to provide habitat for the
new groups. Safe Harbor agreements
ensure that baseline RCW populations
are managed properly and remove
regulatory concerns of landowners by
eliminating their legal responsibilities
for groups above the baseline.
As of 2002, 146 landowners had
enrolled 338,697 acres in Safe Harbor
agreements, harboring 351 RCW
groups in 5 states. While landowners
are under no obligation to encourage
the creation of new RCW groups,
many have done so by establishing
recruitment clusters. Overall, the
private lands conservation strategy
for RCWs, including MOAs, HCPs
and Safe Harbor, has resulted in the
protection of approximately 561
groups of woodpeckers in 10 states,
43% of groups known on private land.
This significant contribution is
helping to reverse the loss of habitat
and RCWs on private land.
A tract of virgin
longleaf pine
forest on private
land in south
Georgia; oldest
trees are 400-500
years old. Only
about 3000 acres
of the southeast’s
original
90,000,000 acres
of virgin longleaf
pine forest
remains.
Grant Hilderbrand, USFS
28 29
1994 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in
Tennessee because of demographic isolation.
1995 U.S. Forest Service issues “Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Management of the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on
National Forests in the Southern Region”.
1995 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery, Ecology
and Management”, the proceedings of red-cockaded
woodpecker Symposium III, is published.
1995 Safe harbor policy is created and first red-cockaded
woodpecker safe harbor permit is issued for the
North Carolina Sandhills region; similar permits
are issued for Texas (1998), South Carolina (1998),
Virginia (2000) and Georgia (2000).
1995 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues “A Current
Bibliographic Resource for the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker”; updated annually.
1996 U.S. Army issues “Management Guidelines for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker on Army Installations”.
1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues
“Strategy and Guidelines for the Recovery and
Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
and its Habitats on National Wildlife Refuges”.
1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service institutes the
“Annual Red-cockaded Woodpecker Population
Data Report”, a system to track population size
and trend and habitat accomplishments on all
public lands and private lands, in partnerships
with the Service, harboring red-cockaded
woodpeckers.
2000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launches
red-cockaded woodpecker website
<http://rcwrecovery.fws.gov>.
2001 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in
Kentucky due to catastrophic loss of pine forest
caused by southern pine beetle epidemic.
2001 R.N. Conner, et al. publishes “The Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: Surviving in a Fire-maintained
Ecosystem”, the second book on red-cockaded
woodpeckers.
2003 Second revision of the “Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Recovery Plan” is approved.
2003 Fourth red-cockaded woodpecker symposium
held in Savannah, Georgia.
1970 “Symposium on the Red-cockaded Woodpecker”,
proceedings of the first symposium, is published.
1973 Red-cockaded woodpecker receives Federal
protection with the passage of the Endangered
Species Act.
1979 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan”
approved by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1983 Second red-cockaded woodpecker symposium
held in Panama City, Florida.
1983 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Symposium II
Proceedings”, proceedings of the second
symposium is published.
1985 First revision of the “Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Recovery Plan” is approved.
1986 “Report of the American Ornithologists’
Union Committee for the Conservation of the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker” is published.
1986 First successful translocations of red-cockaded
woodpeckers are conducted.
1987 First in-depth study into the sociobiology of the
red-cockaded woodpecker is published.
1988 First estimate of viable population size is
published.
1989 Hurricane Hugo devastates Francis Marion
National Forest, home of the second largest
red-cockaded woodpecker population.
1990 Scientific Summit on the red-cockaded
woodpecker is held in Live Oak, Florida;
Summary Report is published.
1990 Drilled cavities are invented.
1990 First investigation into the genetic health of red-cockaded
woodpeckers is published.
1991 Cavity inserts are invented.
1992 R.W. McFarlane publishes “A Stillness in the Pines”,
the first book about red-cockaded woodpeckers.
1993 Third red-cockaded woodpecker symposium held
in North Charleston, SC.
1993 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Georgia Pacific
Corporation establish first private land partnership,
a memorandum of agreement, for conservation and
management of red-cockaded woodpeckers.
30 31
The following federal and state agencies and private
organizations manage lands that are directly involved in
the recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Additionally, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, various other
state agencies (see below), and many individual and
corporate private landowners are assisting significantly
in supporting conservation and recovery programs for
the red-cockaded woodpecker. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service appreciates and is thankful for the numerous
private and public sector partners that are helping save
the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Federal
Department of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S.
Navy, National Guard
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State
Florida Division of Forestry, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Florida Park Service, North
Carolina Department of Agriculture, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, South
Carolina Forestry Commission, South Florida Water
Management District, Saint John’s River Water
Management District
Private
The Conservation Fund
The Nature Conservancy
North Carolina Chapter, Virginia Chapter
Other state agencies harboring, managing and conserving
red-cockaded woodpeckers on lands under their
administration:
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry,
Oklahoma Department of Conservation, South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources, South Carolina
Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South
Carolina Department of Transportation in cooperation
with the South Carolina Chapter of The Nature
Conservancy, Texas Forest Service, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department
Contributors and Acknowledgements
Project Coordinator: Ralph Costa
Brochure text by:
This pamphlet was originally drafted
by Ms. Felicia Sanders, a Master’s
degree graduate student (1998-2000)
at Clemson University studying
red-cockaded woodpeckers and
enrolled in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Student Career Experience
Program (SCEP) at the Service’s
Clemson Field Office.
Ms. Nancy Jordan, also a Master’s
degree graduate student (2000-2002)
at Clemson University studying red-cockaded
woodpeckers and enrolled
in the SCEP at the Clemson Field
Office, completed the final draft.
The Clemson Field Office and
the Service’s Regional Office in
Atlanta appreciate the significant
contributions of Felicia’s and Nancy’s
graduate programs and SCEP
toward the conservation and
recovery of the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Layout and design: Ellen Marcus,
USFWS
32
Ralph Costa
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator
Clemson Field Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Department of Forest Resources
261 Lehotsky Hall
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634
Phone: 864/656 2432
Fax: 864/656 1350
E-mail: ralph_costa@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
October 2002
Cover: male RCW at
nest cavity entrance;
Phillip Jordon

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
2 3
Description
The common name came into use
during the early 1800’s when
‘cockade’ was regularly used to refer
to a ribbon or other ornament worn
on a hat. Female RCWs lack the red
cockade. Juvenile males have a red
‘patch’ in the center of their black
crown. This patch disappears during
the fall of their first year at which
time their ‘red-cockades’ appear.
The RCW shares the southeast with
seven other species of woodpeckers.
Hairy and downy woodpeckers could
be mistaken for RCWs as they are
also small and have black and white
barred wings, but not a barred back.
Only the RCW has the white cheek
patch. Other woodpecker species,
including the red-bellied, red-headed,
pileated, northern flicker and
yellow-bellied sapsucker, can be
distinguished from the RCW by
either having very noticeable red on
their head or lacking the black and
white bars on the back.
The red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) is a
small bird measuring
about 7 inches in length.
Identifiable by its white
cheek patch and black
and white barred back,
the males have a few red
feathers, or “cockade”.
These red feathers
usually remain hidden
underneath black
feathers between the
black crown and white
cheek patch unless the
male is disturbed or
excited.
1 Red-cockaded
2 Hairy
3 Downy
4 Pileated
5 Red-bellied
6 Red-headed
7 Sapsucker
8 Flicker
9 Ivorybill
(extinct)
Richard A. Parks
Plate of
southeastern
woodpeckers;
from Thomas
M. Imhof’s
“Alabama Birds”
Southeastern Woodpeckers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5
Historical Distribution and Abundance
RCWs were once considered
common throughout the longleaf
pine ecosystem, which covered
approximately 90 million acres before
European settlement. Historical
population estimates are 1-1.6 million
“groups”, the family unit of RCWs.
The birds inhabited the open pine
forests of the southeast from New
Jersey, Maryland and Virginia to
Florida, west to Texas and north to
portions of Oklahoma, Missouri,
Tennessee and Kentucky. The longleaf
pine ecosystem initially disappeared
from much of its original range
because of early (1700’s) European
settlement, widespread commercial
timber harvesting and the naval
stores/turpentine industry (1800’s).
Early to mid-1900 commercial tree
farming, urbanization and agriculture
contributed to further declines. Much
of the current habitat is also very
different in quality from historical
pine forests in which RCWs evolved.
Today, many southern pine forests
are young and an absence of fire has
created a dense pine/hardwood forest.
Top: Turn of the century (1900) logging of virgin longleaf
pine forest in east Texas; courtesy of the East Texas
Research Center, Steen Library, Forest History
Collections, Stephen F. Austin State Univ, Nacogdoches,
TX. Bottom: Turn of the century (1900) logging of
longleaf pine forest in east Texas; courtesy of the East
Texas Research Center, Steen Library, Forest History
Collections, Thompson Family Lumber Enterprises
Collection, P90T:202, Stephen F. Austin State Univ.,
Nacogdoches, TX
Virgin longleaf
pine forest in
Escambia Co. FL
6 7
Decline of RCWs
The primary habitat of the RCW, the
longleaf pine ecosystem, has been
reduced to 3% of its original expanse.
This reduction of suitable habitat has
caused the number of RCWs to
decline by approximately 99% since
the time of European settlement (see
map on pages 12-13). The RCW was
listed as endangered in 1970 and
received the protection of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) with
its passage in 1973. At the time of
listing, the species had declined to
fewer than 10,000 individuals in
widely scattered, isolated and
declining populations. Today there
remains about 5,600 groups or 14,000
birds. Most populations were
stabilized during the 1990’s due to
management based on new
understanding of RCW biology and
population dynamics. However, there
are still populations in decline and
small populations throughout the
species’ current range are still in
danger of extirpation.
Life History and
Reproductive Biology
The red-cockaded is a territorial,
non-migratory species. The RCWs
social system is more complex than
most species of birds; individuals live
in groups normally consisting of a
breeding pair and zero to four male
(rarely female) offspring from
previous years. These offspring,
know as “helpers”assist in incubating
eggs and brooding and feeding
nestlings produced by the breeding
pair. The RCW social system is
referred to as a cooperative breeding
system, that is, the breeding pair
receives assistance from offspring in
the raising of young. In mid-April,
the female RCW usually lays a clutch
of three to five white eggs in the
breeding male’s roost cavity. Eggs
hatch after 10-12 days of incubation
(among the shortest incubation in
birds) and nestlings fledge from the
nest cavity 24-27 days after hatching.
RCW nestlings are altricial, that is,
they do not have feathers when
hatched and their eyes are not open.
RCW delivering food to nestlings
Above: Seven-day
old RCW nestling.
Nestlings are
banded at 7-10
days old. Right:
Helper male
feeding juvenile
male.
Derrick Hamrick
Ralph Costa, USFWS
Derrick Hamrick
8 9
They require a lot of care from
parents and helpers who will feed the
nestlings and clean the cavity of
waste during the nestling period. In
contrast, quail are precocial; they
hatch fully feathered and are able to
feed themselves when led to food by
the parent. After fledging, the
nestlings continue to be fed by adults
for up to six months at which time the
majority of fledglings disperse from
the territory where they hatched.
Mortality is high (68%) for female
fledglings as they disperse to search
for breeding vacancies. Male
fledglings either disperse or remain
on their natal territory to become
helpers. Annual mortality is also high
(57%) for male fledglings. Although
re-nesting may occur if a clutch or
brood is lost, RCWs typically have
only one successful nesting attempt
annually. Double brooding (two
successful nests in one breeding
season) has been documented but is
extremely rare.
Diet and Foraging Behavior
The diet of RCWs consists mostly of
insects in the egg, larvae and adult
stages. These include beetles, ants,
roaches, spiders and other insects
found in or on pine trees. Fruits and
seeds make up a small portion of the
overall diet. Methods of foraging
include flaking away bark and
probing under the bark using their
specialized forked tongue to extract
insects. Large, older trees are
preferred for foraging. In general,
males forage on the limbs and upper
trunk while females forage on the
trunk below the crown. This division
of foraging area is most noticeable in
winter when insect numbers are at
their lowest and their activity slows
due to cold weather, making it harder
for RCWs to detect prey. Differences
in the foraging behavior of males
and females may help to reduce
competition between them when
food is scarce.
Roosting and Nesting Cavities
The RCW is the only North
American woodpecker to excavate
roost and nest cavities in living pine
trees. While longleaf pine is the
preferred species for excavation,
other species such as loblolly,
shortleaf, slash and pond pine are
also used depending on the local
forest type and tree species
availability. The use of live pines as
roosting and nesting sites may have
evolved in response to living in a fire
maintained ecosystem where
frequent fires, primarily in the
growing season, eliminated most
standing dead pines (snags).
Longleaf pine is thought to be
preferred by the woodpeckers
because it is the most fire-adapted of
the pines. Longleaf pine has a unique
‘grass’ stage when young, producing
an abundance of long green needles
that burn during ground fires, thus
protecting the growing stem.
Longleaf also produces more resin
when wounded than other pines,
making them more resistant to insect
outbreaks such as the southern pine
beetle. RCWs use this increased
Above: Male
RCW bringing
food to nest
cavity (note
difficulty seeing
red-cockade).
Right: RCW
active cavity tree
(note candle-like
appearance and
evidence of recent
prescribed fire).
Jim Hanula, USFS
Ralph Costa, USFWS
10 11
resin flow for cavity defense by
chipping holes, called ‘resin wells’,
above and around the entrance to the
cavity as a defense against predators.
Rat snakes, skillful at climbing trees,
are the main predators of RCW
nests. Resin flow produced by the
wells creates a physical and chemical
barrier that impedes the snake’s
movement up the tree. The birds also
scale the outer bark off the tree
above and below the cavity entrance,
exposing sapwood around the cavity
entrance forming a ‘plate’ around the
cavity. Resin flowing from the wells
created by the RCWs may eventually
coat the trunk, thus making the
cavity tree conspicuous from a
distance, giving it a candle-like
appearance.
Each member of the group roosts
in a separate cavity. Cavities are
excavated in mature pines, generally
over 80 years old. Cavity excavation
takes one to six years. The birds
slowly excavate through the resinous
sapwood before reaching the
relatively sap-free heartwood.
RCWs choose older trees for cavity
excavation. They need trees mature
enough to have sufficient heartwood
for a cavity free of sap and because
many mature trees are infected with
red heart fungus. This fungus softens
the heartwood and allows for easier
excavation of the roosting chamber.
Individual cavities are known that
have been used by RCWs for over six
generations, or approximately 30
years. The aggregate of cavity trees
used by a group is referred to as a
‘cluster’. The cluster consists of one
to numerous cavity trees; trees may
contain new cavity ‘starts’ and
completed cavities. Cavity trees
within a cluster may be ‘active’,
currently being used by a RCW, or
‘inactive’, not being used by a RCW.
Above: Female
RCW working on
resin well. Right:
Black rat snake
climbing RCW
cavity tree.
Above: Juvenile
male RCW, just
prior to fledging.
Right: Active
RCW cavity with
many resin
wells, heavy
resin flow and
cavity “plate”.
Below right:
Advanced cavity
start, almost to
heartwood.
Derrick Hamrick
Richard N. Conner, USFS
Derrick Hamrick
Bob Hooper, USFS Ralph Costa, USFWS
12 13
Ecological Niche
Besides being unique among
North American woodpeckers,
red-cockaded woodpeckers are
‘primary’ cavity nesters, meaning
they are responsible for the
construction of cavities. In the
southern pine ecosystem there are
many ‘secondary’ cavity users that
benefit from the RCWs work. RCWs
are considered a ‘keystone’ species
because use of their cavities by these
animals contributes to the species
richness of the pine forest. At least
27 species of vertebrates have been
documented using RCW cavities,
either for roosting or nesting.
Species include birds, snakes, lizards,
squirrels and frogs. Many of these
species, for example wood ducks,
only use the cavities that have been
abandoned by RCWs; abandonment
usually occurs because the entrance
tunnel was enlarged by pileated
woodpeckers. However, southern
flying squirrels, red-bellied
woodpeckers, red-headed
woodpeckers, eastern bluebirds,
brown-headed nuthatches, tufted
titmice and great crested flycatchers
are the species most commonly seen
in RCW cavities, and can use normal,
unenlarged cavities that RCWs could
also use. RCW cavities are a valued
resource for many species and
competition occurs for their use.
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers and Fire
A healthy, productive RCW
population is also an indicator of a
healthy southern pine ecosystem.
RCWs and southern pines both
evolved in a fire-dominated system.
Many other species within this
system show adaptations to fire. The
most prominent adaptation of RCWs
is their use of living pines for cavity
excavation. The history of fire in the
southeast has a natural and human
component. Research has suggested
the ecosystem evolved in response to
slow-moving ground fires started by
Above: Completed,
very active cavity
(note the large
resin wells, thick
resin flow and
plate formation,
indicating a
cavity that has
been in use for
years). Right:
RCW cluster in
longleaf pine
forest. Bottom
right: RCW
cluster in shortleaf
pine/loblolly pine
forest.
Right: Great-crested
flycatcher
using inactive
RCW cavity for
nest. Below:
Southern flying
squirrel using
RCW cavity.
Bob Hooper, USFS
Bob Hooper, USFS Phillip Jordon
D. Craig Rudolph, USFS
Derrick Hamrick
14 15
lightning strikes, which occur more
frequently in the southeast than
anywhere else in North America.
Most fires started by lightning
strikes occur in the spring and
summer growing season, when
thunderstorms are more prevalent.
Native Americans and later
European settlers used fire to clear
land and improve hunting grounds.
However much of this burning was
accomplished during the winter, the
non-growing season. Frequent fires
created an open forest, with large
pines, little to no mid-story, and a
diverse herbaceous groundcover;
described by many 19th century
naturalists as ‘park-like’ because they
could easily ride horses and wagons
across the land. Many of the
groundcover plant species show
adaptations to fire and are termed
‘pyrophytic’ or ‘fire-loving’. For
example, wiregrass is a highly
flammable bunchgrass, typically
producing seed only after a summer
growing season burn. Because of its
unique fire-loving properties, the
biodiversity of herbaceous
groundcover in longleaf pine forests
is among the world’s highest.
Above:
Lightening-ignited
wildfire
in longleaf pine
forest. Below:
slow moving
ground fire in
longleaf pine
forest likely
typical of
‘historic’ natural
and human
ignited fires.
Top: White birds-in-a-nest (Macbridea alba), federally
listed as threatened, endemic to longleaf pine forests in
Florida; one of many listed, rare, endemic, herbaceous
plants unique to southeastern pine ecosystems. Bottom:
Longleaf pine—wiregrass habitat; a result of frequent
growing season prescribed fires.
Joan Walker, USFS Joan Walker, USFS
Ralph Costa, USFWS
D. Craig Rudolph, USFS
16 17
Historic and current (1995); updated 2002, distribution
map of RCW; courtesy of Our Living Resources: A
Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance,
and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems,
National Biological Service, USDI. Red-cockaded
Woodpecker; Costa and Walker, 1995
Historic Distribution of Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Jackson 1971, Hooper et al.
1980).
Current Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Distribution (Federal, State, and Private
Sector Biologists 1993, 1994; updated 2002)
★
Distribution of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers
?
18 19
Habitat Management
Degradation and loss of habitat led to
the rapid decline of RCWs.
Conservation and management of
adequate habitat is central to
recovery goals. Quality habitat
includes forests with trees old
enough for roosting, generally at
least 80-120 years old, depending on
species of pine. Hardwood midstory
results in cluster abandonment;
therefore, it is critical that hardwood
midstory be controlled. Prescribed
burning is the most efficient and
ecologically beneficial method to
accomplish hardwood midstory
control. Either mechanical and/or
chemical treatment may also be
required for initial control of the
midstory. Foraging habitat must also
consist of a forest of older pines with
little or no midstory. Each RCW
group uses from 75-200 acres of
foraging habitat. The acres used
depend upon habitat quality and
population density. For example, a
park-like forest of older, larger pines
and open understory is of higher
quality than a dense forest with many
small, young pines. The area
required for RCW foraging on high
quality sites is less than sites of lower
quality. However, habitat
management for forage and cavity
trees must include the development
of a young age class of pines to insure
the necessary older trees for future
generations of RCWs. The
application of controlled burns is
essential in keeping the structure of
the forest beneficial to RCWs.
Above: Longleaf
pine forest with
young trees
and wiregrass
understory.
Right: Longleaf
pine forest
with turkey
oak midstory.
Bottom right:
High quality,
longleaf pine
RCW foraging
habitat.
Prescribed
burning in
longleaf pine
forest.
D. Craig Rudolph, USFS
Joan Walker, USFS
Ralph Costa, USFWS Felica Sanders, USFWS/Clemson University/SCDNR
20 21
Cavity Management and
Population Augmentation
Today’s RCW populations, especially
small ones, will not increase to viable
sizes without human intervention.
Several management techniques,
introduced in the early 1990’s, have
been responsible for increasing RCW
populations. One of the most
successful has been the installation of
artificial cavities. Cavities are critical
to RCWs nesting and roosting and
their presence for each group
member increases the chances for
survival and persistence of the group.
There are two main techniques for
providing artificial cavities for
RCWs. These include drilling holes
that mimic natural cavities and
installing boxes called ‘inserts’ within
a suitable tree.
These techniques were put to the test
after Hurricane Hugo destroyed 87%
of the active cavity trees on the
Francis Marion National Forest in
1989, the second largest RCW
population at the time. Installation of
artificial cavities, both inserts and
drilled, helped to stabilize the
population after this devastating loss.
Translocation of juvenile RCWs is
another management technique used
in RCW recovery. Translocation
involves moving one or more juvenile
RCWs between or within populations
to achieve management goals. These
goals include saving critically small
populations in danger of ‘extirpation’
or disappearing; developing a better
spatial arrangement of groups to
reduce isolation; introducing birds to
suitable habitat; and increasing
genetic diversity in critically small
populations. Typically, two types of
translocations are conducted: a
female juvenile is moved to a solitary
male group; and an unrelated male
and female juvenile are moved to a
‘recruitment’ cluster in hopes of
establishing a new group.
Recruitment clusters are established
by installing artificial cavities in
unoccupied but suitable habitat.
Refining translocation techniques has
made this an invaluable tool for
recovery. The most important
component, quality habitat,
consisting of open park-like pine
forests, suitable nesting and roosting
cavities, and adequate foraging
habitat, must be in place before
translocations are conducted.
Right: Hurricane
Hugo, September
1989, eye
centered over the
Francis Marion
National Forest.
Bottom right:
Francis Marion
National Forest
post-Hurricane
Hugo.
Above right:
Subadult female
and male in
preparation for
translocation to
a recruitment
cluster. Above:
Wildlife biologist
installing
artificial cavity
insert.
NASA Ralph Costa, USFWS
Mike Lennartz, USFS
USFS
22 23
Conservation Efforts
Recovery efforts for the RCW began
with the listing of the bird in 1970
and passage of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. The U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service outlined goals
and guidelines for recovery of the
RCW in the Recovery Plan written in
1979 and revised in 1985 and 2003.
Recovery will be achieved when we
have numerous self-sustaining
populations of woodpeckers. Once
Endangered Species Act de-listing
criteria are met, the size, number,
and distribution of populations will
be sufficient to counteract threats
associated with small population size,
environmental factors, such as
annual fluctuations in weather and
prey abundance, genetic viability,
and catastrophic events, thereby
maintaining long-term viability for
the species as defined by current
understanding of these processes.
Regions and habitat types currently
occupied by the species will be
represented as adequately as
possible, given habitat limitations.
The Recovery Plan identifies eleven
recovery units based on ecoregions.
Populations required for recovery
are distributed among the recovery
units to ensure the representation
of broad geographic and genetic
variation within the species historic
range. The recovery strategy
includes the participation of federal
agencies, state agencies and private
landowners. Approximately 66%
of RCWs occur on federal lands,
including numerous national forests,
national wildlife refuges, and
military installations, one national
park and one Department of
Energy facility. Eleven percent of
RCWs occur on state lands and
private lands harbor approximately
23% of known RCWs.
Knowledge of RCW biology and
life history increased significantly
during the 1990s. Research findings
have led to significant conservation
initiatives. Many property managers
and biologists band their RCWs
(both adults and nestlings), survey
and map cavity trees and annually
monitor nesting activities to assess
population health. Research findings
on the bird’s natural history and
ecology have enabled landowners and
managers to implement habitat
improvement programs. The positive
population trends (early 1990’s to
present) on many public and private
lands are a direct result of successful
implementation of a well-coordinated
regional translocation program and
habitat improvements, such as
controlling midstory, prescribed
burning, and installing artificial
cavities.
Right: Artificial
cavity insert with
metal restrictor
plate to prevent
damage by
pileated
woodpeckers
(note artificially
created resin
wells and non-toxic
white paint
to imitate resin
flow). Below
right: wildlife
biologist banding
eight-day-old
RCW nestling.
Wildlife biologist
climbing RCW
nest cavity tree,
with ten foot
sectional
Swedish
climbing ladders,
to capture and
band nestlings.
USFS Jody Bock, Clemson University
Nancy Jordan, Clemson University
24 25
Private Land Conservation
Partnerships
Although public lands, both federal
and state, are central to recovery
efforts, approximately 23% of RCWs
(1296 groups in 10 states) reside on
private lands. In the early 1990’s, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
realizing that population declines on
private lands were hindering
recovery efforts, developed and
implemented strategies for RCW
conservation on private land.
The benefits of conserving RCWs
on private lands are numerous.
They include reducing habitat
fragmentation rates, maintaining or
enhancing occupied habitat, restoring
populations to unoccupied habitat,
maintaining or increasing population
numbers, establishing buffers for
adjacent public land populations,
reducing effects of catastrophic
events, such as hurricanes or southern
pine beetle outbreaks, providing
corridors to other populations,
serving as reservoirs of genetic
diversity, providing birds for other
populations, and contributing to
research on life history and ecology,
management techniques and
conservation strategies.
Many private landowners are
concerned with restrictions on
the use of their land should an
endangered species, such as RCWs,
be found on or move to their
property. One of the foundations
of the private land conservation
strategy of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has been to alleviate
landowner’s fears of endangered
species restrictions while also
minimizing the economic impact
of conservation.
Strategies include Memorandums
of Agreement (MOA), Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCP) and
Safe Harbor agreements. MOAs are
generally between the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and corporations.
They outline actions by which a
corporation can manage for
RCWs and/or their habitat while
simultaneously meeting their
corporate objectives for land
management. HCPs, once approved
by the Service, provide landowners
with “incidental take” (defined by the
ESA as taking that “is incidental to,
and not the purpose of, the carrying
out of an otherwise lawful activity”)
of selected RCW groups in exchange
for ‘creation’ of new groups,
management of occupied habitat
and/or restoration of suitable habitat.
Via an HCP, private landowners
Active
red-cockaded
woodpecker cavity
tree in urban
setting on private
land enrolled in
safe harbor.
Approximately 5%
(70 groups) of the
1296 red-cockaded
groups living on
private land are
in urban settings,
such as horse
farms, golf
courses and
subdivisions.
The remaining
95% are on quail
plantations and
industrial forest
lands.
Protected, active
red-cockaded
woodpecker
cluster on
industrial forest
land. Several
industrial forest
landowners have
taken leadership
roles, via habitat
conservation
plans, in
red-cockaded
woodpecker
conservation and
management on
their property.
Jeremy Poirier, International Paper
J.H. Carter III
26 27
Historic Time Line for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers
1807 Red-cockaded woodpecker “discovered” and
described as new species by Louis Jean Pierre
Vieillot; given scientific name of Picus borealis,
the northern woodpecker.
1810 Alexander Wilson describes the red-cockaded
woodpecker as a new species and names it Picus
querulus. Because Viellot’s scientific name came
first, today the bird is known as Picoides
borealis, the red-cockaded woodpecker, the
common name provided by Wilson.
1821 John James Audubon captures a red-cockaded
woodpecker near Bayou Sara, Louisiana and
paints its portrait from a living specimen; he
releases it two days later.
1880’s Red-cockaded woodpecker populations begin a
precipitous decline that continues through the
1930’s as land is cleared for agriculture, timber
and the war effort (World War I).
1911 F. E. L. Beal publishes first account of the
red-cockaded woodpecker’s diet.
1928 L.A. Hausman describes the red-cockaded
woodpecker as a “very causal visitant into the
southern portion of New Jersey”, suggesting it
has been extirpated by this date (assuming it
nested in the state—likely in the south/central
Jersey pine barrens).
1939 James Gut finds red-cockaded woodpecker fossil
wingbone in a Rock Spring, Florida streambed,
indicating presence of red-cockaded
woodpeckers in Florida during the Pleistocene.
1946 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in Missouri.
1958 Red-cockaded woodpecker likely extirpated in
Maryland; occasional sightings in 1974 and 1976
are considered “transients”.
1968 Department of Interior identifies the red-cockaded
woodpecker as a rare and endangered species.
1970 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially lists the
red-cockaded woodpecker as an endangered
species.
1970 J.D. Ligon publishes first account on behavior and
breeding biology of red-cockaded woodpecker.
1970 First red-cockaded woodpecker symposium held
at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia.
typically ‘create’ a new woodpecker
group to mitigate and minimize for
loss of a group they might want to
eliminate from their land.
By far the most successful of the
private lands conservation strategies
is Safe Harbor. Originally developed
for RCW conservation, the Safe
Harbor approach is now being applied
to many other listed species that occur
on private lands. Under a Safe Harbor
agreement, a landowner voluntarily
agrees to protect and manage habitat
for the ‘baseline’ population; that is
the number of groups on the property
at the time the agreement is signed.
The landowner also implements
specific habitat improvements (such
as prescribed burning, midstory
hardwood removal, installation of
cavities) to further enhance occupied
and/or unoccupied, but potentially
suitable, habitat. If the habitat
improvements encourage the creation
of RCW groups above the ‘baseline’,
the landowners are under no
obligation to provide habitat for the
new groups. Safe Harbor agreements
ensure that baseline RCW populations
are managed properly and remove
regulatory concerns of landowners by
eliminating their legal responsibilities
for groups above the baseline.
As of 2002, 146 landowners had
enrolled 338,697 acres in Safe Harbor
agreements, harboring 351 RCW
groups in 5 states. While landowners
are under no obligation to encourage
the creation of new RCW groups,
many have done so by establishing
recruitment clusters. Overall, the
private lands conservation strategy
for RCWs, including MOAs, HCPs
and Safe Harbor, has resulted in the
protection of approximately 561
groups of woodpeckers in 10 states,
43% of groups known on private land.
This significant contribution is
helping to reverse the loss of habitat
and RCWs on private land.
A tract of virgin
longleaf pine
forest on private
land in south
Georgia; oldest
trees are 400-500
years old. Only
about 3000 acres
of the southeast’s
original
90,000,000 acres
of virgin longleaf
pine forest
remains.
Grant Hilderbrand, USFS
28 29
1994 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in
Tennessee because of demographic isolation.
1995 U.S. Forest Service issues “Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Management of the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on
National Forests in the Southern Region”.
1995 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery, Ecology
and Management”, the proceedings of red-cockaded
woodpecker Symposium III, is published.
1995 Safe harbor policy is created and first red-cockaded
woodpecker safe harbor permit is issued for the
North Carolina Sandhills region; similar permits
are issued for Texas (1998), South Carolina (1998),
Virginia (2000) and Georgia (2000).
1995 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues “A Current
Bibliographic Resource for the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker”; updated annually.
1996 U.S. Army issues “Management Guidelines for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker on Army Installations”.
1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues
“Strategy and Guidelines for the Recovery and
Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
and its Habitats on National Wildlife Refuges”.
1999 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service institutes the
“Annual Red-cockaded Woodpecker Population
Data Report”, a system to track population size
and trend and habitat accomplishments on all
public lands and private lands, in partnerships
with the Service, harboring red-cockaded
woodpeckers.
2000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launches
red-cockaded woodpecker website
.
2001 Red-cockaded woodpecker extirpated in
Kentucky due to catastrophic loss of pine forest
caused by southern pine beetle epidemic.
2001 R.N. Conner, et al. publishes “The Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: Surviving in a Fire-maintained
Ecosystem”, the second book on red-cockaded
woodpeckers.
2003 Second revision of the “Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Recovery Plan” is approved.
2003 Fourth red-cockaded woodpecker symposium
held in Savannah, Georgia.
1970 “Symposium on the Red-cockaded Woodpecker”,
proceedings of the first symposium, is published.
1973 Red-cockaded woodpecker receives Federal
protection with the passage of the Endangered
Species Act.
1979 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan”
approved by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
1983 Second red-cockaded woodpecker symposium
held in Panama City, Florida.
1983 “Red-cockaded Woodpecker Symposium II
Proceedings”, proceedings of the second
symposium is published.
1985 First revision of the “Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Recovery Plan” is approved.
1986 “Report of the American Ornithologists’
Union Committee for the Conservation of the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker” is published.
1986 First successful translocations of red-cockaded
woodpeckers are conducted.
1987 First in-depth study into the sociobiology of the
red-cockaded woodpecker is published.
1988 First estimate of viable population size is
published.
1989 Hurricane Hugo devastates Francis Marion
National Forest, home of the second largest
red-cockaded woodpecker population.
1990 Scientific Summit on the red-cockaded
woodpecker is held in Live Oak, Florida;
Summary Report is published.
1990 Drilled cavities are invented.
1990 First investigation into the genetic health of red-cockaded
woodpeckers is published.
1991 Cavity inserts are invented.
1992 R.W. McFarlane publishes “A Stillness in the Pines”,
the first book about red-cockaded woodpeckers.
1993 Third red-cockaded woodpecker symposium held
in North Charleston, SC.
1993 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Georgia Pacific
Corporation establish first private land partnership,
a memorandum of agreement, for conservation and
management of red-cockaded woodpeckers.
30 31
The following federal and state agencies and private
organizations manage lands that are directly involved in
the recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Additionally, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, various other
state agencies (see below), and many individual and
corporate private landowners are assisting significantly
in supporting conservation and recovery programs for
the red-cockaded woodpecker. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service appreciates and is thankful for the numerous
private and public sector partners that are helping save
the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Federal
Department of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service
Department of Defense
U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S.
Navy, National Guard
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State
Florida Division of Forestry, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Florida Park Service, North
Carolina Department of Agriculture, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, South
Carolina Forestry Commission, South Florida Water
Management District, Saint John’s River Water
Management District
Private
The Conservation Fund
The Nature Conservancy
North Carolina Chapter, Virginia Chapter
Other state agencies harboring, managing and conserving
red-cockaded woodpeckers on lands under their
administration:
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry,
Oklahoma Department of Conservation, South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources, South Carolina
Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, South
Carolina Department of Transportation in cooperation
with the South Carolina Chapter of The Nature
Conservancy, Texas Forest Service, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department
Contributors and Acknowledgements
Project Coordinator: Ralph Costa
Brochure text by:
This pamphlet was originally drafted
by Ms. Felicia Sanders, a Master’s
degree graduate student (1998-2000)
at Clemson University studying
red-cockaded woodpeckers and
enrolled in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Student Career Experience
Program (SCEP) at the Service’s
Clemson Field Office.
Ms. Nancy Jordan, also a Master’s
degree graduate student (2000-2002)
at Clemson University studying red-cockaded
woodpeckers and enrolled
in the SCEP at the Clemson Field
Office, completed the final draft.
The Clemson Field Office and
the Service’s Regional Office in
Atlanta appreciate the significant
contributions of Felicia’s and Nancy’s
graduate programs and SCEP
toward the conservation and
recovery of the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Layout and design: Ellen Marcus,
USFWS
32
Ralph Costa
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator
Clemson Field Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Department of Forest Resources
261 Lehotsky Hall
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634
Phone: 864/656 2432
Fax: 864/656 1350
E-mail: ralph_costa@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
October 2002
Cover: male RCW at
nest cavity entrance;
Phillip Jordon